Extinction, the facts BBC.

[2wheels]

Interestingly, the grass fed v feedlot movement in America is trying to do the same thing.
Personally I don’t understand why a country that allows the use of hormones to improve the growth of cattle should need to feed cattle on intensive corn based diets to finish them quicker. We can finish cattle sub 16 months without hormones. Grass fed beef grown with hormones should finish as quick as or quicker than our cattle.

convenience, it's easier for them to handle large amonts of cattle in a feedlot? also a more consistent product.

 

[Suffolk Serf]

convenience, it's easier for them to handle large amonts of cattle in a feedlot? also a more consistent product.

All year round too.
Remember that feed lots finish calves born and reared on very extensive ranches.

 

[Hampton]

convenience, it's easier for them to handle large amonts of cattle in a feedlot? also a more consistent product.

Exactly, you produce cattle within the rules you are given

 

[le bon paysan]

Channel 4 hatchet job on farming, now!

 

[Raider112]

No, the point is that when we as livestock farmers buy soya or palm kernal, we are paying someone to farm where once there was rainforest. That is part of the financial incentive. We should grow our own and stop producing barley for export

Is that the case on a large scale with Soya? that BBC programme that we were all up in arms about seemed to say the rainforests in Brazil were cleared more for cattle and it was another area, which name escapes me, that was being converted from grass to Soya if I remember rightly.
I'm not daft enough to say that no Soya is grown on cleared rainforest by the way.

 

[Mr Mackay]

Is that the case on a large scale with Soya? that BBC programme that we were all up in arms about seemed to say the rainforests in Brazil were cleared more for cattle and it was another area, which name escapes me, that was being converted from grass to Soya if I remember rightly.
I'm not daft enough to say that no Soya is grown on cleared rainforest by the way.

I was watching John Torode when he went around Argentina . That was one of the overiding sentiments he was on about ,the fact their beef was nearly all feedlot beef and only 20% was from grass farms whilst the farmers were growing so much soya !! Good prog ,especially all the succulent beef he ate !!

 

[kiwi pom]

sticking this on our fb page, I don't care if it's entirely factually accurate or not, as said there are many versions of the truth and we need to give ours.


Soya, rainforests and UK livestock: setting the record straight.

We do not import whole soya beans into the UK to feed to our livestock. Rather, we import soya meal, a by-product of producing soya oil for human consumption which would otherwise be thrown away.

Livestock have always been used to transform food unfit for human consumption into nutrient-rich meat and milk.
We have been doing so since the first farmer threw a maggoty apple to the first domesticated pig.
Today we feed a huge range of by-products to our livestock; oil seeds, brewers grains, wheat unfit for baking bread.
All of this is an environmentally sound use of ‘waste’ products.

If you are concerned about rainforest clearance, then there are important steps you can take.
- Check food packet ingredients for soya.
- Purchase rapeseed oil labelled as being grown by UK farmers.
- Use butter and lard, two of the huge range of products we get from those most amazing providers of sustainable food: The cow and the pig.

Save the planet: Shop local, eat British, enjoy a balanced diet.

I do tend to agree with you, I'm not sure people want to eat a local seasonal diet though. How do we change that?
If you're going to change it you perhaps need to change the way people farm too.
For example, grow soy beans in the UK, invest in the supply chain to process the bean.
You mention that wheat not suitable for bread is fed to animals who turn it into food, sounds great. The reality is the wheat is grown for the animal feed in the first place because apparently it's too hard/not profitable to grow milling wheat, which is instead imported.

On the other hand you could say the UK is crap at growing milling wheat and soy beans but excellent at growing feed wheat so it is overall more efficient to grow the feed wheat in the UK and the milling wheat and beans elsewhere and chuck in a bit more transport, to move them round.

I've no idea which argument, if any is right.

 

[kiwi pom]

It always seems to be privileged white people complaining about the rain forest and the state of the planet in general.
Perhaps they feel guilty about the lives they lead or want to feel superior to the minions, who have other things to worry about, by showing how much they care?

Perhaps as a solution we can round all these people up and buy them a one way ticket to the Amazon. For every one we send we can bring back a local who can then slip into the "volunteers" old life. Obviously those that are sent to the Amazon wont be allowed to chop any trees down, and those that were trying to scrape a living will now be fine.
Planet saved.
Your welcome.

 

[delilah]

I do tend to agree with you, I'm not sure people want to eat a local seasonal diet though. How do we change that?
If you're going to change it you perhaps need to change the way people farm too.

Changing the way we farm is change from the bottom up. Change through supply management.
I am arguing the opposite. That change needs to be from the top down. Change that is demand driven.

Reverse the concentration of market share in food retailing. Re localize the food economy from the top down.
Re-localization of the food chain at the top of the chain sends a market signal down the line; reopening of abattoirs, of local packhouses, bakeries, dairies.
This in turn sends a signal to those at the bottom of the supply chain, farmers, who will do what they have always done. Respond to market signals.
The global environmental crisis, driven by uncontrolled fossil fuel use, demands this re localization of the food chain. Which is why this change will be driven by the environmental movement.

Which is just a long winded way of saying:
- Market share is the root of all evil.
- There is nothing wrong our side of the farm gate.
- UK agriculture and the environment movement are each others greatest allies.

 

[Hindsight]

Changing the way we farm is change from the bottom up. Change through supply management.
I am arguing the opposite. That change needs to be from the top down. Change that is demand driven.

Reverse the concentration of market share in food retailing. Re localize the food economy from the top down.
Re-localization of the food chain at the top of the chain sends a market signal down the line; reopening of abattoirs, of local packhouses, bakeries, dairies.
This in turn sends a signal to those at the bottom of the supply chain, farmers, who will do what they have always done. Respond to market signals.
The global environmental crisis, driven by uncontrolled fossil fuel use, demands this re localization of the food chain. Which is why this change will be driven by the environmental movement.

Which is just a long winded way of saying:
- Market share is the root of all evil.
- There is nothing wrong our side of the farm gate.
- UK agriculture and the environment movement are each others greatest allies.

Very idealistic and worthy. How are you going to achieve what you suggest. You say repoening of bakeries, dairies, etc - but who is going to commit capital and open these unless there is a guarentee of financial success. I will answer my own question - for you to disagree or come back with your own suggestions. Government intervention? To prevent people shopping in Tesco? Or there has to be some real reasons for consumers to change. You posted up for me the link to a supply co-op - so am alternative -but how local was it. And once these new businesses become successful how are you going to stop them expanding to no longer be local. AM not sure how your localsim corresponds with capitalism.

 

[delilah]

AM not sure how your localsim corresponds with capitalism

A relocalized food economy would be a purer form of capitalism than what we have now. One of the principles of capitalism is a free market. We don't have a free market right now, we have a cartel.
It is always worth remembering what Mrs T was told by one of her advisors: Uncontrolled competition leads to a monopoly.
The free market is an academic abstract, it can't exist in the real world, as Governments will always intervene at some point. I am arguing that the intervention is needed now, at the top of the food chain, to break up the cartel.
The ways to achieve this are covered in this thread.
https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/tescorona.313517/

 

[Hindsight]

A relocalized food economy would be a purer form of capitalism than what we have now. One of the principles of capitalism is a free market. We don't have a free market right now, we have a cartel.
It is always worth remembering what Mrs T was told by one of her advisors: Uncontrolled competition leads to a monopoly.
The free market is an academic abstract, it can't exist in the real world, as Governments will always intervene at some point. I am arguing that the intervention is needed now, at the top of the food chain, to break up the cartel.
The ways to achieve this are covered in this thread.
https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/tescorona.313517/

No you have Oligopolies. Different in many but subtle ways to Monopolies. And are they a Cartel. May seem that way but eventually all the successful business operating in a market drift to the similar cost base - nature of Oligopolies.

Now we have in past 10 years seen new entrants with a different lower cost structure - Aldi/Lidl/Costo. That is creating the current fuss re Haribo - the other thread.

 

[delilah]

No you have Oligopolies. Different in many but subtle ways to Monopolies. And are they a Cartel. May seem that way but eventually all the successful business operating in a market drift to the similar cost base - nature of Oligopolies.

Now we have in past 10 years seen new entrants with a different lower cost structure - Aldi/Lidl/Costo. That is creating the current fuss re Haribo - the other thread.

Yes, I know we have an oligopoly, I was quoting what Mrs T was advised. And yes we have a cartel.
You asked what I would suggest, have a read .

 

[DrWazzock]

It is as it is for a reason. Basically because it’s shaken down to be the optimum or least worst way forward in a less than perfect world, taking into account human nature amongst many other less than perfect things.

 

[DrWazzock]

Is there anything wrong in engineering the world to suit our purpose? Should we feel obliged to protect endangered species at the expense of human wellbeing? Sure enough I see no need for wanton destruction of habitat by and large but when push comes to shove and it’s your family that needs a living, feeding or a home, what would you do about say a newt inhabiting half an acre of scrub:

 

[Lowland1]

It always seems to be privileged white people complaining about the rain forest and the state of the planet in general.
Perhaps they feel guilty about the lives they lead or want to feel superior to the minions, who have other things to worry about, by showing how much they care?

Perhaps as a solution we can round all these people up and buy them a one way ticket to the Amazon. For every one we send we can bring back a local who can then slip into the "volunteers" old life. Obviously those that are sent to the Amazon wont be allowed to chop any trees down, and those that were trying to scrape a living will now be fine.
Planet saved.
Your welcome.

I wonder if suddenly an unexplored part of Scotland was discovered totally forested but undeveloped. The Government says it’s free for any farmers who can clear it. Would farmers be asking each other what about the environment and where will the pinemartens live? or would they be asking Stihl or Husqvarna?

 

[DaveGrohl]

It is as it is for a reason. Basically because it’s shaken down to be the optimum or least worst way forward in a less than perfect world, taking into account human nature amongst many other less than perfect things.

This is a big part of the problem that Delilah is railing against. Human nature. Don't get me wrong, I'd love us to go back to localism and massively reducing the power of the the supermarkets, and also the massive food manufacturers that are gearing up to sell us even more crap that will damage our health rather than improving it. But humans are becoming ever lazier and luuurve going to do their food shopping in one go. How that problem is solved I've no idea.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Changing the way we farm is change from the bottom up. Change through supply management.
I am arguing the opposite. That change needs to be from the top down. Change that is demand driven.

Reverse the concentration of market share in food retailing. Re localize the food economy from the top down.
Re-localization of the food chain at the top of the chain sends a market signal down the line; reopening of abattoirs, of local packhouses, bakeries, dairies.
This in turn sends a signal to those at the bottom of the supply chain, farmers, who will do what they have always done. Respond to market signals.
The global environmental crisis, driven by uncontrolled fossil fuel use, demands this re localization of the food chain. Which is why this change will be driven by the environmental movement.

Which is just a long winded way of saying:
- Market share is the root of all evil.
- There is nothing wrong our side of the farm gate.
- UK agriculture and the environment movement are each others greatest allies.

I agree, but there is a problem with the environmental movement, there was an article in Saturdays Telegraph, basically saying most people in the UK want to do more for the environment and nature, but don't support Extinction Rebellion (when social attitudes surveys show they agree with the fact action is needed over the climate & environment crisis). This is because, the environmental movement also encompass all the rag tag of far left ideas, such as LGBT rights, destroy capitalism etc and this stops the general public supporting the core views about the environmental issues.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Very idealistic and worthy. How are you going to achieve what you suggest. You say repoening of bakeries, dairies, etc - but who is going to commit capital and open these unless there is a guarentee of financial success. I will answer my own question - for you to disagree or come back with your own suggestions. Government intervention? To prevent people shopping in Tesco? Or there has to be some real reasons for consumers to change. You posted up for me the link to a supply co-op - so am alternative -but how local was it. And once these new businesses become successful how are you going to stop them expanding to no longer be local. AM not sure how your localsim corresponds with capitalism.

one of the most capitalist countries in the world, America and yet, in it's American football league they share the revenues and limit the size of wages for clubs, so all are pretty equal (this stopping Chelsea etc having the financial muscle to totally dominate the likes of Swansea or Cardiff), so what I am trying to say is with a little bit of political thought it would be possible.

In the past when we had capitalism without limits the captains of industry also had strong moral or religious beliefs (Rountree, Cadbury etc) so tended to spend their money on charitable causes, where as the multinational corporations now are totally immoral.

 

[egbert]

Is there anything wrong in engineering the world to suit our purpose? Should we feel obliged to protect endangered species at the expense of human wellbeing? Sure enough I see no need for wanton destruction of habitat by and large but when push comes to shove and it’s your family that needs a living, feeding or a home, what would you do about say a newt inhabiting half an acre of scrub:

and now you're asking the right questions...

We're inevitably going to eff up some of the worlds fauna and flora just by existing in the numbers we do, and by grubbing up mineral reserves, we're living unsustainably, and by burning some fossil fuels, we're never going to be carbon neutral.

the question is who takes the hit? who can carry on partying?